Supervisors Threaten to Block City From County-Run Elections : Politics: Consolidation costs are disputed. The action could force voters to cast ballots in separate booths at the same polling place.

In a dispute over money, the county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday threatened to block the city of Los Angeles from participating in the June county-run election--a move that could delay a public vote on a city ethics reform package.

The action could also force voters to go through the extraordinary step of casting ballots in two separate voting booths at the same polling place, a city election official said. That could happen if the city decides to go ahead with its own election, held concurrently with the county’s.

Supervisors voted unanimously and without discussion to deny the city permission to consolidate ballots with the June 5 county-run election unless the city agrees in advance to pay its share of the costs and drops a lawsuit against the county over billing for the 1988 election.

The city’s bill for the November, 1988, election rose 822%, to $755,654, over the November, 1986, fee of $78,223. Los Angeles filed suit against the county challenging its billing procedure.

In 1988, the county changed the complicated formula for billing cities and school districts for the cost of consolidating elections. The new formula spread total costs among participating municipalities. Under the old system, cities were billed only for the additional cost of consolidating their ballot with the county’s ballot.

City officials Tuesday were studying their options for responding to the board action.

J. Michael Carey, executive officer in the city clerk’s office, said the city could hold its own election. But if the election were held on the same day as the county election, it would require approval from the county supervisors, Carey said.

It would cost the city about $1.7 million to hold its own election, compared to $1.1 million for a consolidated election.

If the city conducts its own election at the same time as the county’s, the city would have its own ballots and voting booths, though it could use the same polling place, Carey said.

Another option is that the city, in hopes of resolving the dispute, could delay a vote on its measures until November.

In early 1988, when the dispute first arose, the City Council postponed a vote on measures that had been scheduled to go on the June, 1988, ballot. Some of the measures went before voters in November, 1988.

The City Council has tentatively approved placing on the June ballot four Charter amendments, a $376-million bond issue to pay for bringing city facilities up to earthquake-safety standards and an ethics reform package.

The ethics measure would ban outside work for city officials while increasing the annual salaries of City Council members to $94,344 from $61,522. It would also establish public financing for city campaigns.

In the consolidation process, governments with overlapping jurisdictions cooperate in placing measures on the same ballot. They do this to avoid duplicating overhead costs.

The board action was requested by Supervisor Pete Schabarum, who said, “The county cannot afford to subsidize the costs of elections for the city of Los Angeles.

“The pro-rata billing formula used for the first time in 1988 ensures that every jurisdiction pays its fair share of all costs incurred in conducting an election,” Schabarum said in a motion. “Fifty-five cities and districts have been billed using this pro-rata formula with only the city of Los Angeles refusing to pay its share.”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky accused the county of “shaking the city down” but expressed confidence that the jurisdictions could work out their disagreement before June. “I’d like to believe that if East and West Germany can get together, maybe the city and county can resolve this problem,” he said.